Telangana High Court
WP/40733/2014 of Smt. Khanis Fatima, Vs Vijaya Bank, on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS WRIT PETITION No.40733 OF 2014 ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu) This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 02.12.2014, in I.A.No.3539 of 2014 in S.A.I.R.No.642 of 2014 on the file of the Debts Recovery
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANUANDTHE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.40733 OF 2014
ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)
This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 02.12.2014,in I.A.No.3539 of 2014 in S.A.I.R.No.642 of 2014 on the file of theDebts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad.
2. Petitioner obtained loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondentBank for the purpose of her sons’ business. She paid someinstalments and later, committed default in repayment of the entire loanamount. The loan was declared as Non-performing Asset (N.P.A.). Anotice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction ofFinancial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (forshort, “the SARFAESI Act”) was issued by the respondent Bank on01.01.2013 and later, possession notice under Section 13(4) of theSARFAESI Act was issued on 23.05.2013. Challenging the saidnotice, the petitioner filed Securitisation Application (IR) No.642 of2014 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. The petitioneralso filed I.A.No.3539 of 2014 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 to condone the delay of 390 days in filing the SecuritizationApplication and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, thepetitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner isready to pay the entire amount due to the respondent Bank if sixweeks’ time is granted to her.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondent Bank opposed the same on the ground that earlier, thepetitioner committed default in payment of the instalments and prays to dismiss the writ petition.
5. The respondent Bank is interested only to recover the entireamount due. As the petitioner came forward to discharge the entireoutstanding amount to the bank, reasonable time can be granted toenable the petitioner to pay the entire amount due to the Bank. Therefore, we direct the petitioner to pay 50% of the outstanding loanamount to the Bank within a period of six (6) weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order and the remaining 50% of the loanamount within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter. If anyone of theabove conditions is not fulfilled by the petitioner, the respondent Bankis at liberty to proceed further for realisation of the amount due to theBank in accordance with the provisions under the SARFAESI Act.
Registry is directed not to entertain any application seeking“Extension of Time” or “For being mentioned” in this regard.
6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Thereshall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pendingin this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
_______________
JUSTICE ANIS
Date: 30.12.2014AMD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANUAND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.40733 OF 2014
DATE: 30.12.2014
AMD